• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Издания570
      • Показать ещё
      Люди1253
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1158
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации246
      • Показать ещё
      Компании829
      • Показать ещё
      Разное577
      • Показать ещё
      Формат4
      Показатели18
      • Показать ещё
Совет национальной безопасности США
Совет национальной безопасности (англ. National Security Council, сокращённо СНБ) — консультативный орган при президенте США для решения наиболее важных вопросов национальной безопасности и внешней политики, и координации действий всех основных ведомств, связанных с указанными вопрос ...

Совет национальной безопасности (англ. National Security Council, сокращённо СНБ) — консультативный орган при президенте США для решения наиболее важных вопросов национальной безопасности и внешней политики, и координации действий всех основных ведомств, связанных с указанными вопросами.

Совет национальной безопасности был создан в 1947 году законом о национальной безопасности. Его созданию послужила убеждённость влиятельных американских политиков в том, что дипломатия Государственного департамента США больше не была способна сдерживать СССР при напряжённых отношениях между СССР и США[1]. Конечной целью его создания было обеспечение согласованности действий между военно-морскими силами, Корпусом морской пехоты, сухопутными войсками и военно-воздушными силами США.

2009 г.:

Заседание СНБ: президент Барак Обама, Госсекретарь Хиллари Клинтон, Министр обороны — Роберт Гейтс, Заместитель начальника ОКНШ — ген. Кэртрайт, директор разведки Деннис Блэр, советник президента Грег Крейг, директор ЦРУ Леон Панетта, заместитель начальника Совета внутренней безопасности Том Донилон, советник президента по национальной безопасности ген. Джеймс «Джим» Джонс и глава президентской администрации Рэм Эмануел

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
22 сентября, 18:01

Trump Widens North Korea Sanctions: ETFs in Focus

Trump put a ban on international banks from the American market if they facilitate transactions with North Korea.

22 сентября, 15:35

Readout of President Donald J. Trump’s Meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan

President Donald J. Trump met today with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan in New York. The two leaders agreed that North Korea's continued provocative actions, including its two recent missile launches that overflew Japan and the September 3rd nuclear test, constitute an unprecedented and grave threat to international peace. President Trump reiterated the U.S. commitment to defend Japan using the full range of U.S. military capabilities, and the leaders reaffirmed that the United States and Japan stand together shoulder-to-shoulder. The leaders welcomed the recent adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2375 and committed to working with South Korea and the entire world to secure its full implementation. They also committed to pursue other efforts to maximize pressure on North Korea, including urging China and Russia to play more consequential roles. The two leaders discussed economic matters and committed to deepening the partnership between the two countries, including through the U.S.-Japan economic dialogue. Finally, they affirmed continued coordination in preparation for President Trump's visit to Japan later this year. ###

22 сентября, 15:34

Readout of President Donald J. Trump’s Trilateral Meeting with Prime Minister Abe of Japan and President Moon of the Republic of Korea

President Donald J. Trump hosted a working lunch in New York today with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and President Moon Jae-in of the Republic of Korea. The three leaders agreed that North Korea’s continued aggressive actions—including its two recent missile launches that overflew Japan and its September 3, 2017 nuclear test—constitute clear and growing threats to their countries as well as to the rest of the world. The leaders committed to the fast and full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2375, and they resolved to work with all other countries to achieve that goal. They agreed to mobilize all available means to maximize pressure on North Korea and call on all other nations to do the same. The three leaders agreed that North Korea’s provocative actions have drawn their nations even closer together. Finally, they affirmed close and continuing coordination in preparation for President Trump’s visits to Japan and the Republic of Korea later this year. ###

22 сентября, 12:02

Trump aides begin looking for the exits

After a wave of high-profile White House departures this summer, staffers who remained are reaching out to headhunters to discuss their next moves.

22 сентября, 09:19

Дмитрий Евстафьев: Америка вступила в кризис государственности

Выступление президента США Дональда Трампа с трибуны Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН получилось крайне резонансным и вызвало у слушателей довольно неоднозначную реакцию. Глава аппарата Белого дома Джон Келли слушал речь Трампа в ООН, закрыв лицо руками. Президент Чехии Милош Земан постарался выразиться предельно обтекаемо, но в его словах все равно чувствовалась обида: «Выступление [Трампа] мне немного напомнило выставление в школе оценок непослушным ученикам». Импульсивный глава Венесуэлы Николас Мадуро назвал Трампа «новым Гитлером». Министр иностранных дел КНДР Ли Ен Хо охарактеризовал выступление Трампа как «собачий лай». Глава Ирана Хасан Роухани высказался более дипломатично, но вместе с тем категорично: «Речь американского президента была оскорбительной для всех иранцев, поэтому Трампу следовало бы извиниться». Пожалуй, сдержаннее и лаконичнее всех в отношении речи Трампа высказался глава МИД РФ Сергей Лавров, назвавший выступление американского лидера на Генассамблее ООН «примечательным». Разумеется, не обошли своим вниманием речь президента США и представители российского экспертного сообщества. Какие выводы можно сделать на основании выступления Дональда Трампа? Федеральное агентство новостей попросило ответить на этот вопрос политолога, профессора Высшей школы экономики Дмитрия Евстафьева.

22 сентября, 04:11

Iraq: Security Council voices concern over planned referendum in Kurdistan Region

The United Nations Security Council today expressed concern over the “potentially destabilizing impact” of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s plans to unilaterally hold a referendum next week.

22 сентября, 02:37

Why China Could Invade North Korea

John Dale Grover Security, Asia Beijing might be compelled to act militarily if Pyongyang was attacked or collapsed on its own. Over the past few months, tensions between the United States and North Korea have increased, with Kim Jung-un testing a possible hydrogen bomb on September 3 and the United Nations Security Council voting to implement further sanctions shortly after. Writers have discussed American policy towards China, the possibility of a deal with North Korea, and the need to avoid backing Kim into a corner. However, China’s perspective and the genuine possibility of a limited or complete Chinese intervention into North Korea, has received less coverage. China might be compelled to act militarily if North Korea was attacked or collapsed on its own. Doing so would protect Beijing’s objectives of securing the border, preventing U.S. forces from nearing the Yalu River, and thwarting the emergence of a united, U.S.-allied democratic Korean state. The assumption of a default North Korean-Chinese alliance is a legacy of the Cold War, and has often led to false assumptions about Beijing’s priorities. One major question is whether China would come to Kim's aid in the event of war. After all, how would many of China’s citizens and military brass, having been fed a steady diet of nationalism, react if Beijing failed to protect its ally? However, others have maintained that China would keep out of the conflict since Kim has become more of a liability to Beijing. China’s leadership prizes stability and therefore would not risk $825.38 billion worth of trade with the United States and South Korea, let alone a nuclear war. What a War Between NATO and Russia Would Look Like.  Read full article

22 сентября, 01:40

Press Briefing by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley

New York Hilton Midtown – Rhinelander Gallery South New York, New York 4:37 P.M. EDT AMBASSADOR HALEY: Good afternoon. Well, we have had a very productive and strong week at the U.N. You saw the United States had a very strong presence with the President, the Vice President, and many members of the national security team, as well as his economic team. The United States was out in full force, and I think the U.N. felt it, but I think it was extremely productive. If you look at the beginning of the week, and we started with U.N. reform. You had the President and the Secretary General rolling out massive reforms for the U.N. What was extraordinary was we had 130 countries that have now signed on to that reform. That's over two-thirds of the General Assembly, which is who is going to vote on this at the end. So that was a great start to the week. Then you saw the President's address to the General Assembly, and I think it showed the strength of the United States, but it also asked the world to come together and it asked all the countries to come together as we fight these rogue regimes, and mainly North Korea and Iran. And I think what you saw were a lot of countries responded, they were very positive to the speech, and they appreciated how blunt and honest he was. I think that's been the overall theme from the international community this week, is how straightforward he was and how refreshing it was as they heard him speak. We also today met with our allies, Japan and South Korea. Obviously a lot to talk about with North Korea. And so we had good conversations with them. And the President reassured, obviously, Japan and South Korea, but they also talked about strategies going forward for North Korea. On Iran, that was a topic of conversation throughout the week. I think everyone was talking about the destabilizing activities that they can continue to do throughout the Middle East, whether it's in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and the list goes on. So it is something that we will continue to talk about and continue to move forward to make sure that we're stopping any of their reckless behavior as well. We also co-hosted a meeting with Secretary Boris Johnson, as well as the Dutch Foreign Minister, Bert Koenders, on human rights reform, and really talked about the fact that it needed to be representative of its name. We have a lot of bad actors on that council. Both the President and the Vice President spoke about it in their speeches, and the need to see better-quality countries that are on that council in order for it to be effective, and obviously for the United States to stay on it. If we don't see changes in the Human Rights Council, we'll continue to advocate for human rights, but we'll do it on our own if we have to. And then the Vice President attended a Security Council meeting yesterday on peacekeeping reform. We have made great progress these past several months in terms of reforming peacekeeping so that it's actually going towards a political solution, it's transparent, it's accountable, but we're also giving the troops the equipment they need and the ability to be trained in order to do their jobs. And so we're just seeing smarter peacekeeping, and I think that all came together in the peacekeeping reform vote that we had yesterday. One of the topics that everyone had to talk about this week and all had an opinion on was Burma. And as we're dealing with the crisis in Burma and we're seeing how much migration has taken place from the Rohingyas going out of Burma, every country is concerned. They're concerned that the military continues to be aggressive, and they're concerned that the government continues to be in denial. And so I think you'll continue to see the international community talk about that. I think you will only see them get more active on that as we go forward. And finally, today, the Security Council took a great step forward. It was a measure that I think the international community had been working on a long time, we certainly worked with our British friends on it -- and that was ISIS accountability in Iraq. If you look at the fact that there have been massive -- mass graves, there have been all types of terrible conducts to women and girls in those areas. Whether it's what's happened with the Yezidis or the Christians or the Sunni and Shia Muslims, what we now have is a part of the U.N. body that's going to be able to go in there and actually collect evidence and make sure that it can be used in trial so that the victims finally have their say and get their day in court, or at least their families do if they've lost loved ones. So that was a big day for the Security Council today. And with that -- there was obviously a lot more. I think the President met with multiple countries. There were lots of bilats. There was a lot of talk and planning and productivity. But overall, we can say it was a solid week at the U.N. this week, and it was highly successful. But with that, I'll answer any of your questions. Yes. Q Thank you very much. Why do you expect this latest round of sanctions will work when an array of sanctions have failed in the past against North Korea? AMBASSADOR HALEY: This is in reference to what Secretary Mnuchin talked about? This is pretty amazing, because when you look at the sanctions that we have in place, North Korea is already feeling it. You can already hear of the lines at the gas stations that they have, and the fact that they are having a severe reduction in revenues is the sanctions are working. What this does is take it a step further. This says: Anyone that deals with North Korea, any financial institution that deals with North Korea is going to be punished. And so I think it's important. And it's like Secretary Mnuchin said: If you're going to support North Korea, then you have to be prepared to be sanctioned as well. Q And you say that sanctions have been working, and yet North Korea hasn’t stopped its nuclear provocations. Do you think that these sanctions are going to actually get North Korea (inaudible)? AMBASSADOR HALEY: We always knew that the sanctions may not work. What the goal of the sanctions was always intended to be is to cut the revenue so they could do less of their reckless behavior. If they don't have the funding for the ballistic missiles, for the nuclear production, then they can do less of it. That's the goal of the sanctions. It doesn’t mean that it's necessarily going to change Kim's attitude or his belief on what he wants to do, but it will slow down the production of the nuclear process going forward. Q Ambassador, thank you. When the President spoke in his speech about totally destroying North Korea if forced to defend ourselves or our allies, what exactly did he mean? Under what circumstances would he consider totally destroying North Korea? AMBASSADOR HALEY: Well, I think that's just common sense. I mean, if you look at it, we have said multiple times, the President said it, members of his team have said it: We don't want war. That's the last thing anyone wants. We don’t want loss of life. That's the last thing anyone wants. But at the same time, we're not going to run scared. If for any reason North Korea attacks the United States or our allies, the U.S. will respond, period. That's what's going to happen. What you're seeing now is we continue to go through diplomatic measures, we continue to exhaust everything we have. And the key right now is that other countries actually support the sanctions and follow through with them, and they also continue to isolate North Korea until we can get them to come to the negotiating table. But until then, that's just the reality. If they were to strike the United States, of course we would have to respond back. Q So just to clarify, you're specifically saying that that is if North Korea attacks first? AMBASSADOR HALEY: I mean, we can't play out the scenarios on what's going to happen, but obviously it would take something very serious for the President to have to make a decision to do something back. But there's a lot of things between where we are now and that situation that can be done. There are a lot of military options that can be done. And so the President is not going to spell out specifically what he's going to do, when he's going to do it, or where he's going to do it. But there are many options that he's discussed with his national security team that, should North Korea do anything irresponsible or reckless, that he has to choose from. Q Ambassador, thank you. Just a quick one on the sanctions on Korea and then I have a question on Iran. On Korea, the administration has said that this is not aimed at China but you heard the President say today that China has, you know, told its central bank not to do business with North Korea. Secretary Mnuchin said that he called the Chinese. So how is this not -- and especially you've talked about how China is really the main financial backer of North Korea. So how can this not really be directed at China? And then on Iran, is there a way to talk about -- to ramp up pressure -- as what you were talking about Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the Middle East, which I think a lot of your allies agree on -- without the violating the agreement, per se, as Secretary Tillerson said? I mean, is there a way to get allies to rally around more terrorism type and other sanctions while keeping the nuclear provisions in place? AMBASSADOR HALEY: So, first of all, with the sanctions on North Korea, it only impacts those that continue to do business with North Korea. So if China does business with North Korea, yes, it will impact them. If there are countries in Africa that do business with North Korea, it's going to impact them. So really it depends on countries that choose to continue to support North Korea over the rest of the world that's asking them not to. In reference to Iran, you have a couple of processes that take place. On October 15th, the President has the decision to make on whether to certify or decertify, and that's U.S. law. That has nothing to do with the JCPOA or the Iran Deal. That's U.S. law. And U.S. law requires the President every 90 days to decide whether the Iran Deal and other elements of the U.N. resolution -- which would include ballistic missile testing, which would include arms smuggling, which would include support of terrorism, those things -- it asks the President to look at all of those things. And if he still thinks that the deal is in the best interest of the United States, then he certifies. If he thinks that the deal is -- that the situation is not in the best interest of the American public, then he doesn't certify. At that point, it goes to Congress and he works with Congress on how to reshape the situation. But the Iran Deal and U.S. law are two different things. Q Are you saying that he could decertify without specifically withdrawing from the deal? AMBASSADOR HALEY: That's right. I mean, that's just the option that he has and that's the Corker-Cardin law that came into effect that allowed that to happen. What I will tell you from a U.N. perspective, what we're looking at and what you're going to hear us very vocal on is the fact that 2331, the resolution that was in place, what we saw was it basically wrapped in with the nuclear deal; it said if Iran did any of these things, it would be in violation. And since then, the Secretary General has come out with a report that said they have violated all of those things -- their support for terrorism, their arms smuggling, the idea that they continue to do ballistic missile testing -- and they need to be called out for that. And that's something that you will see us do as we go forward in the United Nations, to make sure that they know that just because we did this nuclear deal, it doesn’t give them a pass on all the other things that they're doing wrong. Q Ambassador, you said in your opening remarks that one of the topics that everybody had an opinion about this week and is talking about was Burma. The President gave a 4,600-word address to the global U.N. body in which he didn't mention the word Burma or Myanmar at all. Did you have any direct input in the speech? Did you press him to address Burma in the speech? And were you disappointed that he did not? AMBASSADOR HALEY: Well, I can tell you he's very concerned about Burma because he's talked to the national security team and asked exactly what was going to be done. He asked the Vice President to speak about it in his speech, which is why the Vice President has. And he's been very involved in the decision-making. I think that he, like every other leader, can tell you we're all scratching our heads over Burma, because all this has happened in three weeks. You have almost half a million people who have left, and the tragedies and the abuse that's happened there is something that a lot of us can't stomach. So, no, it's mainly -- if you listen to all the leaders, everybody is just trying to figure out who can move the officials in Burma, and where to go. So -- Q Did you ask the President to try and address this? And (inaudible) spoken publicly about it. AMBASSADOR HALEY: Well, he's very concerned about Burma. And I think that I did talk with the Vice President about it quite a bit and that's why he was passionate about it. But really he was speaking because the President asked him to. Q Have you or President Trump spoken directly with Aung San Suu Kyi, and have you done so in the last few days? Or anybody in the administration talked to her about what's happening? And would you (inaudible) publicly to do more in her role as state counsel? AMBASSADOR HALEY: Not only have we pressed her, we've pressed the military. So we had two things happening. Secretary Tillerson did call her and did discuss the situation with her, but then also, General Dunford is calling the head of the military to say, "Look, we've had a relationship with you but this cannot continue, and we need to know what you're going to do about it." Q Yes, Madam Ambassador, you've been very vocal on the shortcomings of the Iran Deal and Iran's behavior, perhaps beyond the strict confines of your job here. Where does that come from? Is this your own sort of direct opinion after hearing about Iranian behavior here, or through conversations with the President? Or just talk a little bit about that. AMBASSADOR HALEY: I had conversations with the President. He was very concerned about Iran. He was very concerned about the deal. And so I went to learn about it and to find out from the IAEA, to look at the resolution, to look at the violations. And so it was just digging deep on the situation of what we found, and then that's why I gave the speech on the scenario that the President is being faced with on the decisions to be made. This situation, it's not an easy situation by any means, because you look at North Korea and you look at the fact that for 25 years we were looking at bad deal after bad deal after bad deal, and broken promise, broken promise, broken promise. So here we are again, and we don’t want to be dealing with the next North Korea. And so that's why he's taking it so seriously and saying we need to look at every aspect of this and make sure that it truly is in the best interest of the American public. Q The German Foreign Minister said today that any disavowal of the Iran Deal would reduce the likelihood of getting any similar disarmament deal with North Korea. Do you share those concerns that any actions on the Iran Deal might reduce the possibility of getting a deal with North Korea? And separately, as a point of clarification, do you support a full oil embargo on North Korea? AMBASSADOR HALEY: So I think let's go back to Iran in the first place. What I will tell you is, a lot of countries are going to have their opinions on whether the U.S. should stay in the deal or not. But those countries don’t have Iranians saying "death to America." They're not saying "death to Germany." They're not saying all of those things. What we can see is terrorist attacks happening everywhere with ties to Iran. And that's something we need to be careful about. And so it has never moved the U.S. to care about what other countries say. What does move the President is, are we doing everything in the best interest -- security interest for the American people. And that's what you're seeing is playing out. In terms of comparing Iran to North Korea, that's exactly what we're doing, is we had so many bad deals with North Korea and everybody looked the other way. And every time they broke that deal, they looked the other way. Well, where are we now? They now have a hydrogen bomb. They now have ICBM. So if we don’t do something and we make the same mistakes we made with North Korea, we will be dealing with Iran that has nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. And so that's the concern and that's what we're trying to do with that. Q Madam Ambassador, the President said this week that he's made a decision on Iran. Can you tell us what it is? AMBASSADOR HALEY: No. Q All right. I wanted to try. On a separate issue, the President also addressed Venezuela in his remarks this week at the U.N., and he also had a meeting with Latin American leaders. Can you tell us a little bit more about what he said to them? And I understand in particular that they suggested that the President place an oil embargo on Venezuela would be the most effective way of addressing that problem. Is that something that the United States would consider? AMBASSADOR HALEY: Well, I think that -- I was in the dinner with our Latin American friends, and I could tell you there was a lot of concern from all of them on what's happening in Venezuela. They have all tried; we saw they tried through the OAS, and Venezuela got out of that. We've tried to do it through multiple avenues to get to Maduro and let him know what's not acceptable. The U.S. has moved forward on sanctions, and they were not opposed to that. So, yes, there were some conversations on what they recommended going forward, but I don’t think I should share that. I can tell you that there's a lot of support in Latin America to see Venezuela start to respect its people and go back to the democracy it's supposed to be. And I think every one of them was concerned about what's happening right now. Q Can you share just your own thoughts about an oil embargo on Venezuela, though? Is that something that -- AMBASSADOR HALEY: Well, you know -- I mean, look, if things don’t improve, all those options are always there, and so that's what we're watching to see. First it was sanctions and now we'll look and see. It's not off the table, I can tell you that. Q Ambassador, thank you. There's been a lot of speculation about your political future and your future within the Trump administration. Some people are even saying that you're gunning to be Secretary of State and trying to push Rex Tillerson out. Can you please address these speculations? AMBASSADOR HALEY: I mean, there's going to be chatter about things. Ever since I was a legislator, people have talked about what I'm trying to do or what I'm supposed to do. What I'm trying to do is do a good job, and I'm trying to be responsible in my job, and I'm trying to make sure that I inform the American people everything that I know. That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm trying to serve the President and this country the best I can. If people want to take it to mean something else, that's their issue -- it's not anything I spend time on. Q But do you want to be Secretary of State? AMBASSADOR HALEY: No, I do not. Q So you don’t want to be -- (laughter) -- Q Ambassador, how can the U.S. maintain its diplomatic credibility and get a nuclear deal with North Korea when it is willing to consider blowing up, damaging, putting in peril the existing diplomatic deal with Iran on its program? Doesn’t this undermine U.S. credibility? AMBASSADOR HALEY: It does not undermine U.S. credibility. What it shows is that the United States is going to always watch out for its people, and that just because there was some agreement that was agreed to -- the smartest thing any country can do is go back and look at it and say, "is it working"; not have too much pride to say, "Oh, I signed it, I have to continue to be a cheerleader." Is it working? And I'll ask you, do you think that deal is working when Iran continues to test ballistic missiles? Do you think that deal is working when they are supporting terrorists everywhere, from Lebanon to Yemen to Syria to Iraq? Do you think it's still working? And do you think it's still working when they're smuggling arms and now working with North Korea? Is that in the best interest of the United States? I would question that. Because what you're looking at is a country that says "death to America," working with other countries that may also want the same thing. And the President has the responsibility to make sure nothing happens to Americans. And I think that's what he's trying to do. Back in the back. Q Thank you, Ambassador Haley. I'm from Bangladesh. Just I want to know -- I have two questions on Myanmar, Burma. Bangladesh prime minister had a conversation with President Trump, and after the conversation she said in international news agency that President Trump is not willing to resolve this issue. But we can understand the United States is doing a lot to resolve this issue. So will you make any comment about this (inaudible) to the international news agency? Secondly, will you give any time limit to the Myanmar, Burma authority to return back the refugees, as Bangladesh is facing a huge crisis to accommodate these numbers of refugees in the Bangladesh territory? AMBASSADOR HALEY: I think the United States has been taken aback that so much has happened and gone in such a terrible direction in the last three to four weeks. And I think what you're seeing is every member of the national security team is talking about it, and every member of the national security team right now is calling their contacts and their counterparts in Burma, as well as making sure that we're supporting Bangladesh in what they're doing. Bangladesh has been unbelievable in taking on these refugees. But at the same time, we have to look at the refugees as now they have no home. And it's no way for any one person to live. The human rights situation is terrible, and we want to make sure that we're doing all we can. So what I can tell you is it's all hands on deck in terms of the National Security Council trying to look at it and say, what steps are we going to take next. Okay, last question. Q After losing ground in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State is looking at Libya as a new possible base. Are you in favor of sending back the U.N. system to Libya -- the UNHCR to manage the refugee camps? And what is the United States ready to do to prevent (inaudible) infiltration in Libya? AMBASSADOR HALEY: Well, first of all, I'll tell you that if you look at the situation, I think that we have made amazing progress in Iraq and Syria in terms of defeating ISIS. And that's almost been complete and we're very proud of that. In terms of Libya, that's been something that the National Security Council is meeting with and deciding what our next plans are going to be, and I'm sure they'll roll that out when they're ready. Thank you very much. END 4:59 P.M. EDT

21 сентября, 21:48

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued the enclosed Executive Order (the "order") with respect to North Korea. The order takes further steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, as modified in scope by and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders. In 2008, upon terminating the exercise of certain authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA) with respect to North Korea, the President issued Executive Order 13466, declaring a national emergency under IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the existence of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the attendant risk of its proliferation. Executive Order 13466 continued certain restrictions on North Korea and North Korean nationals that had been in place under TWEA. In 2010, the President issued Executive Order 13551. In that Executive Order, the President determined that the Government of North Korea's continued provocative actions had destabilized the Korean Peninsula and imperiled the Armed Forces, allies, and trading partners of the United States in the region and warranted the imposition of additional sanctions. The President, therefore, expanded the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 and blocked the property and interests in property of three North Korean entities and one individual listed in the Executive Order's Annex and provided criteria under which the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, could designate additional persons whose property and interests in property could be blocked. In 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13570 to further address the national emergency with respect to North Korea and to strengthen the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1718 of October 4, 2006, and UNSCR 1874 of June 12, 2009. In that Executive Order, the President prohibited the direct and indirect importation of goods, services, and technology from North Korea. In 2015, the President issued Executive Order 13687. In that Executive Order, the President determined that North Korea's provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies constituted a continuing threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. He therefore further expanded the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 in order to block the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be agencies, instrumentalities, controlled entities, or officials of the Government of North Korea or the Workers' Party of Korea. In 2016, the President found that the Government of North Korea's continuing pursuit of its nuclear and missile programs, as evidenced by its launch using ballistic missile technology on February 7, 2016, and its nuclear test on January 6, 2016, in violation of its obligations under numerous UNSCRs and in contravention of its commitments under the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, increasingly imperiled the United States and its allies. In order to address those actions and take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, the President issued Executive Order 13722, which blocked all property and interests in property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers' Party of Korea, as well as of persons determined to meet certain criteria. Executive Order 13722 also prohibited certain North Korea-related exports and investments, facilitated implementation of certain provisions of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-122), and enhanced the implementation of certain provisions of UNSCR 2270 of March 2, 2016. I have now found that the provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies of the Government of North Korea, including its intercontinental ballistic missile launches of July 3 and July 28, 2017, and its nuclear test of September 2, 2017, which violated its obligations pursuant to numerous UNSCRs and contravened its commitments under the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks; its commission of serious human rights abuses; and its use of funds generated through international trade to support its nuclear and missile programs and weapons proliferation, constitute a continuing threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and a disturbance of the international relations of the United States. The order I have issued addresses that threat and takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466. The order also facilitates the implementation and furthers the purposes of UNSCR 2321 of November 30, 2016, UNSCR 2356 of June 2, 2017, UNSCR 2371 of August 5, 2017, and UNSCR 2375 of September 11, 2017. The order is targeted at specific activities of the Government of North Korea and other individuals and entities that defy UNSCRs 1718, 1874, 2087, 2094, 2270, 2321, 2356, 2371, and 2375 and international norms, and is not focused on the North Korean people. The order also targets the international trade network that supports the Government of North Korea and the Workers' Party of Korea and their illegal weapons programs. The order blocks the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State: to operate in the construction, energy, financial services, fishing, information technology, manufacturing, medical, mining, textiles, or transportation industries in North Korea; to own, control, or operate any port in North Korea, including any seaport, airport, or land port of entry; to have engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology; to be a North Korean person, including a North Korean person that has engaged in commercial activity that generates revenue for the Government of North Korea or the Workers' Party of Korea; to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order; or to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order. The order also prohibits any aircraft or vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has landed or called at a place or port in North Korea, and any vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has engaged in a ship-to-ship transfer with such a vessel, from landing or calling at a place or port in the United States within 180 days after its departure from North Korea. Further, the order provides authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to block funds that originate from, are destined for, or pass through a foreign bank account determined to be owned or controlled by a North Korean person or to have been used to transfer funds in which any North Korean person has an interest. Finally, the order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to impose correspondent and payable-through account-related sanctions on, or to block all property and interests in property of, a foreign financial institution determined to have, on or after the effective date of the order: knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13551, Executive Order 13687, Executive Order 13722, or the enclosed order, or of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 in connection with North Korea; or knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction in connection with trade with North Korea. I have delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the authority, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the adoption of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c), as may be necessary to implement the order. I also directed all executive departments and agencies to take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement the order. Sincerely, DONALD J. TRUMP ###

21 сентября, 21:43

China's central bank tells banks to stop doing business with North Korea: sources

BEIJING/HONG KONG (Reuters) - China's central bank has told banks to strictly implement United Nations sanctions against North Korea, four sources told Reuters, amid U.S. concerns that Beijing has not been tough enough over Pyongyang's repeated nuclear tests. Tensions between the United States and North Korea have ratcheted up after the sixth and most powerful nuclear test conducted by Pyongyang on Sept. 3 prompted the United Nations Security Council to impose further sanctions last week. Chinese banks have come under scrutiny for their role as a conduit for funds flowing to and from China's increasingly isolated neighbour.

21 сентября, 21:43

China's central bank tells banks to stop doing business with North Korea: sources

BEIJING/HONG KONG (Reuters) - China's central bank has told banks to strictly implement United Nations sanctions against North Korea, four sources told Reuters, amid U.S. concerns that Beijing has not been tough enough over Pyongyang's repeated nuclear tests. Tensions between the United States and North Korea have ratcheted up after the sixth and most powerful nuclear test conducted by Pyongyang on Sept. 3 prompted the United Nations Security Council to impose further sanctions last week. Chinese banks have come under scrutiny for their role as a conduit for funds flowing to and from China's increasingly isolated neighbour.

21 сентября, 18:59

Kim Jong Un: What If America Just Assassinated North Korea's Dangerous Dictator?

Daniel R. DePetris Security, Asia It might make things worse.  Putting Kim six feet underground is only one choice in a set of options that the National Security Council will present to President Trump for his consideration. It may even be a policy option that is so far outside the mainstream that Trump’s national-security aides would disabuse him of studying it further. Reaction from Beijing would be swift and unyielding, and as much as the South Korean and Japanese governments would like North Korea to behave more predictably, it’s not at all certain that Seoul and Tokyo would believe that assassinating the men at the top would achieve that objective. When the first images of a sarin gas attack streamed into the White House Situation Room, President Donald Trump ordered his National Security Council to come back to him the next day with some concrete options. Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford did just that; after rounds of meetings with national-security principles, President Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to launch fifty-nine cruise missiles on an Assad regime airbase where the gas attack originated. At the same time, the NSC was putting the final touches on a North Korea policy review that has been an ongoing project for months. Unlike the administration’s deliberations on the Syrian chemical weapons attack, President Trump is giving his national security advisers far more time and a wider degree of flexibility. Before the policy review began, the Wall Street Journal reported in March that Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland directed aides to include “ideas that one official described as well outside the mainstream.” Read full article

21 сентября, 18:23

U.N. team to collect evidence of Islamic State crimes in Iraq

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations Security Council on Thursday approved the creation of a U.N. investigative team to collect, preserve and store evidence in Iraq of acts by Islamic State that may be war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.

21 сентября, 18:22

Security Council approves probe into ISIL’s alleged war crimes in Iraq

The United Nations Security Council today authorised the establishment of an investigation team to support Iraq’s domestic efforts to hold the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) accountable for acts that may amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed in the country

21 сентября, 17:15

Trump announces new crackdown on North Korea's trade

'The regime can no longer count on others to facilitate its trade and banking activities,' Trump said.

21 сентября, 15:38

Профессор ВШЭ Дмитрий Евстафьев: Америка вступила в кризис государственности

Снижения уровня конфронтации с США ждать не стоит.

21 сентября, 03:09

Did Trump Just Do ‘Rocket Man’ a Favor?

When President George H. W. Bush was staring down Saddam Hussein after the Iraq dictator’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the former diplomat spoke in grand terms about international order and rule of law.But Bush also made the conflict personal. In public speeches, he referred to the Iraqi tyrant only by his first name, as “Saddam”—a pointed discourtesy that drew global attention. For good measure, he mispronounced it—“Sad-um” instead of “Sa-dam”—in a way that sounded like the Arabic word for a barefoot beggar.The ensuing conflict went America’s way: Iraq was quickly ejected from Kuwait in the 1990 Gulf War, a lightning-fast defeat that left the dictator humbled. But in hindsight, some Bush officials consider the way the president had talked about it – particularly his decision to personalize the conflict with man-to-man taunts— to have been a mistake. American troops stopped well before reaching Baghdad, Hussein clung to power, and the result was a clean victory that didn’t quite feel like one. “All the emphasis on Saddam made it harder for [Bush] to justify ending the war with Saddam still in power,” said Richard Haass, a top Bush White House national security official at the time.More than 25 years later, Donald Trump has quickly found himself in his own standoff with a blowhard dictator across the world, and has personalized far more than Bush ever did. Twice in the past week, on Twitter Sunday and in his Tuesday address to the United Nations, Trump has dubbed North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un “Rocket Man,” in an apparent reference to a 1972 Elton John ballad that Trump often played at his campaign rallies – an exercise in high-level name-calling with little modern precedent.Whether any larger strategy lies behind Trump’s mockery is unclear. Trump has long used nicknames to belittle and intimidate opponents, from Atlantic City business rivals to his 2016 challengers—including “Low Energy Jeb” Bush, “Little Marco” Rubio and “Crooked Hillary” Clinton. But experts and former U.S. officials warn that what worked in the Iowa primaries is liable to backfire on the larger and more complicated global stage, especially when it comes to nuclear diplomacy with millions of lives on the line.For a dictator accustomed to honorifics like “Brilliant Leader” and “Guiding Sun Ray,” the nickname “will be perceived as an embarrassment of the highest order” in North Korea, said Ken Gause, an Asia analyst with the nonprofit research organization CNA.“The relationship is already so bad that I’m not sure how much worse it could get,” added Joel Wit, a Koreas expert at Columbia University and the Johns Hopkins University’s School for Advanced International Studies. “But if there’s something guaranteed to make it worse, it’s hurling personal insults at their leader.”Human psychology is an undeniable element of high-stakes international conflict, as any student of the Cuban Missile Crisis can explain, and world leaders can successfully unnerve one another. But the strategy can also backfire. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan branded the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi “the mad dog of the Middle East,” prompting the African strongman to retort that he would not bend to the “insults” of an “old man.” (Reagan wound up bombing Gaddafi into submission.)President Barack Obama considered it a mistake to personalize foreign policy, though he couldn’t resist saying in 2013 that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “slouch” during their meetings made the Russian look like “the bored kid in the back of the classroom.” Putin was reportedly infuriated by the remark, which did nothing to improve faltering U.S.-Russia relations.And as Bush discovered, it can be hard to close the door on a foreign policy problem once you’ve turned it into a man-to-man fight. With North Korea, a successful diplomatic solution might leave Kim in power—and Trump in much the same position as Bush: as a leader claiming a win even as critics cast him as a guy who couldn’t finish the shoving match he startedIt remains unclear whether Trump’s remark is intended to unnerve Kim, whom he has previously both insulted (“a maniac”) and complimented (“a smart cookie”)—or whether it’s just to look tough to his domestic political base. Whatever the motive, there’s little sign it came from — or even ran through — key administration officials crafting North Korea policy.Trump’s own national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, seemed caught off guard after Trump sent a tweet Sunday morning in which he described talking to South Korea’s leader about an unnamed “Rocket Man.” On an a Sunday interview with ABC News, host George Stephanopoulos asked McMaster, “I assume ‘Rocket Man’ is Kim Jong-un?”“Well, it's — it appears to be so,” McMaster said haltingly. “That is where the rockets and missiles are coming from, is North Korea.”Since then, Trump officials have embraced the moniker more enthusiastically—even if they offer few particulars about how it aids America’s strategic position. A “President Trump original,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday. “As you know, he’s a master in branding.”“Look, this is a way of, like, you know, getting people to talk about him,” Trump’s United Nations Ambassador, Nikki Haley, told ABC Wednesday.A National Security Council spokesman did not respond when asked how Trump’s advisers feel about the nickname, and what effect Trump hopes it will have. Several Asia analysts said there would be no confusion about the name’s hostile intent among North Korea’s leaders. The insular county’s population is a different story. Even the few North Koreans familiar with Elton John wouldn’t likely have heard about Trump’s crack: The nation’s state media has yet to report the line, according to Adam Cathcart, an Asia historian at the University of Leeds.Cathcart added that the country’s propaganda machine might even turn the line to Kim’s advantage, at least domestically, in a nation whose missile program is a point of pride.“Insults like that generally don't translate well,” he said, “and if anything the [North Korean] state media has made a habit of rephrasing things in a way that they want their people to hear them. So we might ultimately see some reference to Trump's publicly stated fear of the 'intercontinental missile capability advancing at extreme speed' or something along those lines."Kim and his inner circle will have a clearer understanding of Trump’s intended meaning. But experts doubt that a North Korean leader whose family has defied the West for decades under threat of carpet bombing will be rattled by a reference to a 1970s pop hit. Some even worry that by focusing on Kim personally—something President Barack Obama avoided doing—Trump could elevate the North Korean leader’s stature and inflate his ego.This kind of bluster will not only not deter North Korea, but Kim will call Trump's bluff and conduct more weapons tests,” said Sung-Yoon Lee, a North Korea specialist at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.Moreover, Lee added, name-calling is typically the hallmark of the North Korean regime itself. Pyongyang’s blustery propaganda machine has branded George W. Bush “human scum,” Barack Obama a “wicked black monkey,” and Trump himself “a psychopath.”“For the U.S. to descend to North Korea's level is demeaning,” Lee said.

21 сентября, 02:56

Mike Pence: "All Options Are on the Table" When It Comes to North Korea

Dave Majumdar Security, Asia What happens next?  The United States is once again doubling down on its harsh rhetoric against North Korea, calling on the United Nations to do more to confront the regime in Pyongyang.  Moreover, Washington is once again reiterating that it is more than willing to use military force to ensure North Korea abandons its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. “As the President said yesterday, the United States has ‘great strength and patience,’ but all options are on the table,” U.S. vice-president Mike Pence said in a speech before the United Nations Security Council on Sept. 20. “And if we are forced to defend ourselves and our allies, we will do so with military power that is effective and overwhelming. We call on the United Nations and this Security Council to do more to keep the peace—much more—to confront the threat posed by North Korea.” Pence’s comments come one day after President Donald Trump—speaking before the United Nations General Assembly on September 19—threatened to “totally destroy North Korea” if provoked. (Recommended: Is Donald Trump Going to Attack North Korea?) While Pence did not go as far as Trump, he denounced Pyongyang as being ruled by a “depraved” regime that threatens the entire world. “As the world has seen in just the past few days, a depraved regime in North Korea is relentlessly pursuing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles,” Pence said. “And now, as the President said, ‘threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.’” Pence, however, took a somewhat more conciliatory tone toward the international community. “The United States is grateful to see this Security Council unanimously adopt two resolutions imposing tough new sanctions on the North Korean regime,” Pence said. Read full article

20 сентября, 23:26

Trump urges 'strong and swift' U.N. action to end Rohingya crisis

UNITED NATIONS/COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump wants the United Nations Security Council to take "strong and swift action" to end violence against Myanmar's Rohingya Muslims, Vice President Mike Pence said on Wednesday, declaring the crisis a threat to the world.

20 сентября, 20:18

Trump urges 'strong and swift' U.N. action to end Rohingya crisis

UNITED NATIONS/COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump wants the United Nations Security Council to take "strong and swift action" to end violence against Myanmar's Rohingya Muslims, Vice President Mike Pence said on Wednesday, declaring the crisis a threat to the world.

04 сентября 2015, 14:40

The Clinton Emails and the Iran Lobby

The release of another batch of Hillary Clinton emails, courtesy of the State Department, provides an opportunity to glimpse inside the formation of the Obama administration's approach to Iran in the early days of his presidency. Several interesting emails in particular shed some light on the important role a pro-Iranian lobbying group played in shaping U.S. policy. In fact, given the smear merchants who constantly berate the "Jewish lobby" as being all-powerful in Washington, it turns out that the Iran lobby has been far more influential during the Obama presidency and that they've had the ear of key policymakers in the administration. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America's strategy with Iran. Perhaps no one has taken a deeper dive into the Iran lobby than Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and senior editor of The Weekly Standard. In a series of articles he penned in his Tablet Magazine column, "Agents of Influence" in 2010, he explored the dueling Iran lobbies in detail, half a year after the protest movement in Iran was crushed by the regime. In "Iran's Man in Washington," Smith explored Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, whose main claim to fame rested on Flynt's access to the hard-line elements of the regime in Tehran and the couple's invention of a "grand bargain" offered by Iran in 2003. Smith explains that Flynt "was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration's Iran policy." They blamed the Bush administration for not taking Iran up on their proposed "grand bargain." The problem was, as a former colleague on the National Security Council staff recalled, "It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together." Lee Smith elaborated: Although the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale--a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things--served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime--and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington. Another pillar of the Iran lobby in Washington, Smith writes in "The Immigrant," is Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who became the face of the Iranian-American lobby in Washington. Unlike the Leveretts, Parsi "nurtured a relationship with regime insiders close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--the so-called 'reformers' in Tehran--who have squared off against the faction favored by the Leveretts, which includes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps." Trita Parsi came to the U.S. from Sweden in 2001, having left Iran when he was four years old, in 1978 before the Iranian revolution kicked into high gear. In 2002, he formed the NIAC "hoping to give voice not only to the diaspora's talents and resources but also its growing resentments." In a recent article, "Meet the Iran Lobby," Lee Smith described Parsi as "the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby," who "won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy." Given the nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July, there can be no doubt that Lee Smith is right. The Iran lobby has indeed become powerful in Washington's policy circles and at the highest levels of government. This is the story of another pillar of that lobby, The Iran Project, and the role they played in working with the Obama administration in its infancy to form an approach to Iran, as evidenced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. Determination in the Administration Preferring to eschew the hardball foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it's no secret that Obama believed he could catch more bees with honey. Shortly after taking office in 2009, the new president began a process of engagement with Iran that was ultimately designed to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations. A major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported that Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, agree to reciprocal visits, approve security cooperation between the countries, establish direct flights between the U.S. and Iran, and grant visas to Iranians wishing to visit the United States. Much to Obama's chagrin, the Iranians rejected the overture. President Obama, however, remained determined to strike a grand bargain with Iran. During his initial diplomatic outreach, thousands of Iranian protesters took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election results that reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime brutally cracked down on the protesters killing hundreds, and arresting and torturing thousands. But Obama was undeterred and kept engaging with the regime. Nor did he appear to re-think his approach few months later in September when the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that Iran was secretly building a uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom that came to be known as the Fordow facility. Despite the failure of Obama's outreach in his first year and the clenched fist response offered by the regime in Tehran, the White House was still in need of a strategy with Iran. The blueprint that the Obama administration eventually adopted was one put out by the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, and former ambassadors, William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner. They are the key members of The Iran Project, a pro-Iran lobbying group "dedicated to improving the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments." The Iran Project Peter Waldman explained in an article for Bloomberg Politics that "for more than a decade they've conducted a dialogue with well placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif," Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 promoting a nuclear agreement with Iran, mainly through The Iran Project. After the 9/11 attacks, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund's president, Stephen Heintz, became more infatuated with Iran and he began thinking about "its geostrategic importance and its relation to the Sunni world," Heintz said. So he established The Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S. headed by William Luers. Luers made contact with Mohammad Javad Zarif through Iran's mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering (who also serves on NIAC's Advisory Board) and Frank Wisner. They "developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, The Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties," Waldman explained. The secret meetings they held in European capitals stopped when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president in 2005 but their relationship with Zarif proved to be lynchpin in getting negotiations underway when he was made foreign minister in 2013. Waldman quotes a State Department official saying that the administration welcomed backchannel efforts like The Iran Project's because "it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible." But The Iran Project, which became an independent non-governmental entity as Barack Obama took office in 2009, did more than that for the State Department under Hillary Clinton. They provided the initial plan that as their website states, would "encourage greater cooperation between the U.S. and Iran for greater regional stability." In other words, early on in the Obama administration, the decision was made that a deal with Iran would be about more than their nuclear file. Toward a New Policy on Iran In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under-Secretary of State William Burns met with Heintz, Luers, Pickering, and Wisner--four of the nine key leaders of The Iran Project. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, Pickering emailed her their 10-page plan that "provides fuller detail on the ideas we discussed" on December 22, 2010. Entitled, "Toward a New Policy on Iran," it provided the outline for U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic. Indeed, most of the features contained in the plan are recognizable looking back at U.S. diplomacy since that time. It is, in essence, a document of America's surrender from the Middle East and acquiescence in Iran's dominance in the region. This policy prescription would set the table to discuss the terms of that surrender. "We propose that you urge the President to instruct you to open a direct relationship with Iran," their 2010 policy paper states. "The burden rests on the U.S. to convince an uncertain Iranian leadership to come out of its shell." That required written assurances that the Obama administration would not seek a policy of regime change. Mr. Obama sent Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a letter early in his first term and many more followed between either Khamenei or President Rouhani after his 2013 election. To start off on the right foot with Iran, President Obama "must find a way to communicate directly with the Supreme Leader a U.S. desire to open official talks" and it should be conducted through a personal emissary he appoints to deliver oral messages. According to Israel's biggest-selling daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barack Obama dispatched a personal emissary to a series of secret meetings in the late summer and autumn of 2012 to meet with "Iranian officials led by a personal representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Obama's emissary was his special adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Mr. Obama, born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents. The paper described her as "a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime." What Obama's emissary should call for "in a respectful tone" is mutual recognition of the other's legitimate interests in the area. That means before any discussions would commence, the U.S. would have to recognize as legitimate, Iran's reach into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the United States should sign up to legitimize the export of the Islamic Republic's revolution, a central raison d'être of the regime that emerged after the 1979 revolution. A thaw in relations must precede progress on the nuclear deal, this Iran lobby argued, because one of the consequences of continuing with the current policy "will be the missed opportunity to engage Iran in a long tem constructive regional strategy." Indeed, with Iran acting as America's partner in the Middle East, there will be an opportunity to help establish "a regional security structure aimed at giving Iran and the Gulf states a greater sense of stability." This would allow the U.S. and Iran "to develop together approaches to... eventually weaken Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah." This, of course, is akin to discussing fire safety measures with the neighborhood's leading arsonist. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately redeem Iran, end its isolation, and cooperate with the regime in Tehran on other issues of mutual interest before discussing the nuclear program directly: "A U.S. offer to cooperate with Iran as an equal partner on one or more non-nuclear issues will set the stage for [sic] more fruitful discussion of the nuclear issue. The U.S. will improve markedly chances to get Iran to deal seriously with the nuclear issues by starting with an offer to cooperate on other problems in the region." That is precisely what the Obama administration has been at pains to avoid saying publicly--that the U.S. has acted as Iran's air force in Iraq in an effort to rollback the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. As Lee Smith reported in Tablet Magazine in May 2014: In Lebanon, the U.S. intelligence community has teamed up with the Lebanese Armed Forces' military intelligence, essentially now a subset of Hezbollah, to fight Sunni extremists. In Iraq, the administration has dispatched arms to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, another Iranian asset who is allied with groups that have killed American soldiers, like Asaib Ahl a-Haq, to support his counter-insurgency against Sunni fighters. Regarding the nuclear negotiations themselves, the plan's authors called on the administration to adopt an approach that would provide for Iran's enrichment under international supervision and would eliminate any suggestion that Iran suspends either its enrichment or its manufacturing of key components for their nuclear facilities as a precondition for any progress toward direct talks. And finally, once they begin to negotiate directly with each other, the U.S. should set aside the "zero enrichment preconditions for any progress in the talks." That means shredding the previous six UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program and offering upfront to Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Most critics of the nuclear pact reached in July consider the original sin to be Obama's concession to Iran that they would be allowed to complete the full nuclear cycle on their own soil. What the Fatwa? Picking up on the Iran lobby's paper, another key talking point the Obama administration relied on is an understanding that "the Leader's fatwa against the building or use of nuclear weapons could establish an excellent basis for discussions with the aim of agreement for greater IAEA access to Iran's nuclear program to assure the world about Iran's nuclear intentions and develop an arrangement regarding enrichment." This nuclear fatwa, however, is a canard and a hoax. It is "nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime," according to many analysts including the Middle East Media Research Institute. Nevertheless, it has been frequently cited by the administration and repeated by Mr. Obama in his March 2015 annual statement to Iran marking the Persian new year. And the IAEA now has secret side deals with Iran for inspections with holes so big one could drive a rundown Iranian Saipa through. To top it all off, The Iran Project policy plan also called for "mutual recognition that both leaders of the U.S. and Iran have stated publicly their desire for a world without nuclear weapons." That was designed to send a shot over Israel's bow--an assumed nuclear weapons program that sparked no regional nuclear arms race such as Iran's today. True to form, with the July nuclear deal sealed and in the rearview mirror, Mohammad Zarif penned an article in The Guardian, "Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal--now it's Israel's turn." Iran's Success at America's Expense If the Obama administration did not adopt this plan in its entirety, then it would be an impressive coincidence that just about all of the proposals in The Iran Project's blueprint were adopted and the predictable outcome is the shameful and harmful nuclear deal with Iran. It's not just that the Obama administration was willing to adopt the deal; it's the workman-like salesmanship of the deal that Mr. Obama is engaged in. Despite poll after poll indicating that the more Americans learn about the deal, the less they like it--with a two-to-one margin currently opposed--President Obama has stood resolute. Instead of explaining that the deal wasn't perfect but it was the best he could negotiate and it meets U.S. security needs, or acknowledging that his critics have some good points (since they're based on the President's broken promises) and working to make a few unilateral adjustments that would set more minds at ease, he has chose a different path. He offered no quarter, likening the experts who came out against the agreement to "Lobbyists and pundits" who "were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists." Then, he labeled them "the crazies." In a manner befitting of former CIA Director George Tenet's "slam dunk" prognosis in the run up the 2003 Iraq war, Obama even declared: "I've had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It's not even close." The crystal clear reality is that the Obama administration is not just onboard with the Iran lobby's positions, but he has bought it all--hook, line, and sinker. Whether the inception of the idea began before he came to Washington, or whether The Iran Project, the National Iranian American Council, or the likes of the Leveretts cemented the approach he would adopt during negotiations, one thing is certain: The nuclear deal with Iran is a boon for all involved other than the U.S. and its allies in Israel and the wider Middle East. It marks America's definitive shift away from its traditional regional allies and defines a new relationship with a former adversary that is unfortunately based on hope rather than experience. The Iran lobby will no doubt celebrate this and build on their quiet and impressive success. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.